What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4594490 about?

The tribunal order states: WAIMARINO COOK HAIG must pay [The landlord/s] $2,029.59 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 4594490?

Rubbish Removal: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $950.00 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $25.83 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $33.32 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4594490?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Smoke alarms.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4594490?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9357312-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 4594490 about?

The tribunal order states: WAIMARINO COOK HAIG must pay [The landlord/s] $2,029.59 immediately,

How much money was awarded in case 4594490?

Rubbish Removal: $1,000.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $20.44 awarded to landlord; Property Damage: $950.00 awarded to landlord; Smoke Alarms: $25.83 awarded to landlord; Water Rates: $33.32 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 4594490?

The primary dispute was Property damage. Related themes: Smoke alarms.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 4594490?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/9357312-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4594490 — Property damage

Tenantcheck Insights

New Zealand Tenancy Tribunal Case 4594490 — Property damage | TenantCheck

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4594490 — net $2,029.59 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates	$33.32	Water rates
Repairs: damaged door, hole in wall, affixing removed hooks and towel rail	$950.00	Repairs: damaged door, hole in wall, affixing removed hooks and towel rail
Replace smoke alarms	$25.83	Replace smoke alarms
Cleaning: & rubbish removal	$1,000.00	Cleaning: & rubbish removal
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,029.59
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,029.59

Claims and awards for application 4594490 — net $2,029.59 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Water rates

Amount: $33.32
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Water rates

Repairs: damaged door, hole in wall, affixing removed hooks and towel rail

Amount: $950.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: damaged door, hole in wall, affixing removed hooks and towel rail

Replace smoke alarms

Amount: $25.83
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Replace smoke alarms

Cleaning: & rubbish removal

Amount: $1,000.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning: & rubbish removal

Filing fee reimbursement

Amount: $20.44
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Filing fee reimbursement

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Rubbish Removal Filing Fee Property damage Replace Smoke Alarms Water Rates

Order

WAIMARINO COOK HAIG must pay [The landlord/s] $2,029.59 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details.

Reasons

[redacted] representing the landlord attended the hearing. There was no appearance for the tenants. As they had been served with the notice of hearing, it went ahead in their absence.
The landlord has applied for water rates, compensation, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for water rates?

The tenancy ended on 24 May by Tribunal order. The landlord provided water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. Accordingly, the amount ordered has been proven in evidence.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
The landlord established in evidence that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. There were a number of belongings left behind and the property had not been cleaned at all. Accordingly, the tenant is liable to compensate the landlord for that breach of the RTA. The amount claimed by the landlord in this respect is $1,560 which is very high. The landlord did provide some photos and a basic invoice however no transfer station receipts or photographs establishing the extent of the breach.
Accordingly, the costs claimed are not consistent with other commercial rates that the Tribunal sees proportionate to the evidence provided to establish them. Accordingly, I am only prepared to award a reasonable amount that reflects the state of the property as shown in the photos provided.
I also note that that the landlord did not undertake another clean prior to commencing the replacement tenancy which indicates that the clean invoiced for took the property to a standard higher than can be reasonably expected of tenants. The statutory requirement is that tenants leave the premises in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition. The RTA allows for fair wear and tear. A tenant is therefore not legislatively required to leave a property spotless or even in a condition where the landlord would be happy to rent it out to a new tenant. Accordingly, the amount awarded is less than that sought for the reasons outlined above.
The landlord also established in evidence that the tenants removed a smoke alarm. Therefore, they are liable for the replacement cost.
The amounts ordered are proven in evidence and considered reasonable.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord has claimed compensation for various damages at the property, including a damaged door, a hole in a wall, a damaged power point, having to affix removed hooks for the French door, the toilet roll holder and a towel rail.
A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA. The landlord’s insurance excess is $1250 and the weekly rent was $620.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
Having assessed the photos of the damage, I am satisfied that it was all caused intentionally and during the tenancy. Accordingly, the tenants are liable for the repair costs. I decline the costs associated with the allegedly damaged power point and toilet roll holder as they were not established in photographic evidence. Filing fee and suppression
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee and approve their application for suppression.

Claims & awards

What this tenancy cost at tribunal — claim, category, amount, and party awarded, with reconciled net total.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 4594490 — net $2,029.59 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Water rates	$33.32	Water rates
Repairs: damaged door, hole in wall, affixing removed hooks and towel rail	$950.00	Repairs: damaged door, hole in wall, affixing removed hooks and towel rail
Replace smoke alarms	$25.83	Replace smoke alarms
Cleaning: & rubbish removal	$1,000.00	Cleaning: & rubbish removal
Filing fee reimbursement	$20.44	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$2,029.59
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$2,029.59

Claims and awards for application 4594490 — net $2,029.59 NZD. Verify on MoJ.

Water rates

Amount: $33.32
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Water rates

Repairs: damaged door, hole in wall, affixing removed hooks and towel rail

Amount: $950.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Repairs: damaged door, hole in wall, affixing removed hooks and towel rail

Replace smoke alarms

Amount: $25.83
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Replace smoke alarms

Cleaning: & rubbish removal

Amount: $1,000.00
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Cleaning: & rubbish removal

Filing fee reimbursement

Amount: $20.44
Awarded to: Landlord
Reason: Filing fee reimbursement

Claim types — money lines allowed on this order

Rubbish Removal Filing Fee Property damage Replace Smoke Alarms Water Rates

Order

WAIMARINO COOK HAIG must pay [The landlord/s] $2,029.59 immediately, calculated as shown in table below:
An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Landlord name and identifying details.

Reasons

[redacted] representing the landlord attended the hearing. There was no appearance for the tenants. As they had been served with the notice of hearing, it went ahead in their absence.
The landlord has applied for water rates, compensation, and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

How much is owed for water rates?

The tenancy ended on 24 May by Tribunal order. The landlord provided water rates invoices which prove the amount owing at the end of the tenancy. Accordingly, the amount ordered has been proven in evidence.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA).
The landlord established in evidence that the tenant did not leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy and did not remove all rubbish. There were a number of belongings left behind and the property had not been cleaned at all. Accordingly, the tenant is liable to compensate the landlord for that breach of the RTA. The amount claimed by the landlord in this respect is $1,560 which is very high. The landlord did provide some photos and a basic invoice however no transfer station receipts or photographs establishing the extent of the breach.
Accordingly, the costs claimed are not consistent with other commercial rates that the Tribunal sees proportionate to the evidence provided to establish them. Accordingly, I am only prepared to award a reasonable amount that reflects the state of the property as shown in the photos provided.
I also note that that the landlord did not undertake another clean prior to commencing the replacement tenancy which indicates that the clean invoiced for took the property to a standard higher than can be reasonably expected of tenants. The statutory requirement is that tenants leave the premises in a reasonably clean and reasonably tidy condition. The RTA allows for fair wear and tear. A tenant is therefore not legislatively required to leave a property spotless or even in a condition where the landlord would be happy to rent it out to a new tenant. Accordingly, the amount awarded is less than that sought for the reasons outlined above.
The landlord also established in evidence that the tenants removed a smoke alarm. Therefore, they are liable for the replacement cost.
The amounts ordered are proven in evidence and considered reasonable.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

The landlord has claimed compensation for various damages at the property, including a damaged door, a hole in a wall, a damaged power point, having to affix removed hooks for the French door, the toilet roll holder and a towel rail.
A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA. The landlord’s insurance excess is $1250 and the weekly rent was $620.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
Having assessed the photos of the damage, I am satisfied that it was all caused intentionally and during the tenancy. Accordingly, the tenants are liable for the repair costs. I decline the costs associated with the allegedly damaged power point and toilet roll holder as they were not established in photographic evidence. Filing fee and suppression
Because [The applicant/s] has substantially succeeded with the claim I have reimbursed the filing fee and approve their application for suppression.

Tenancy Tribunal case 4594490 — Property damage

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 4594490 — Property damage

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for water rates?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

How much is owed for water rates?

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions